Not to confuse theory and practical: "It is not enough to pierce a ballistic protection, it is still necessary to be able to stop the adversary which is inside !
Doctor Martin Fackler thinks that in this field, the 5,7x28mm (SS-190) is slightly more powerful than the .22 Magnum..."
Frank W. James

There's a HUGE difference between 5'7x28mm and .22-Magnum; 5'7x28mm has something that .22-Magnum has not, it tumbles severely inside its target, and that's what gives it stopping power. The 5'7x28mm has no more, no less stopping power than, to say, 5'56x45mm (and it couldn't be different, since it's the same bullet, after all). Which is impressive for such a small cartridge.

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Actually no PT--
I may be no expert, but shooting a freezer burned 10 pound roast with what was less than satisfying. The 5.7 was a clean burner-- unless it strikes a solid surface enough to deform, it'll slip right through fabrics and flesh. The bullets are too fast and a simple hollow point isn't frangible enough.
I see it all the time with .22 long rifle hyper velocity ammo and hunting. even ones with deep cut hollow points, heavy grain, and hot load will pass clean through a 20 pound bobcat up to 50 yards.
I hate to admit it, i feel like friggin GunKid-- but using a reams guide (small truing guage rimfire bullseye shooters use to assure bullet form on .22's) I've turned down the very tips of .22 match grade to creat a lead nose for semi-wadcutter nose. Even so-- with a flatten tip and a hollow point, they've passed through some fairly large game from bobcats to beaver.
I've soaked and bound phonebooks to stop a slug and check it for deformation. In those instances, they've partically turned inside out, but still come out almost a perfect spherical shape.

Is .22 mag a good equivalent to 5.7-- yeah. Fackler's statements don't mean .22 mag has the same armor penetrating capabilities-- but it's wound ballistics are damn close to a match.

__________________

Quote:

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face...forever" ~George Orwell

Well, my Editor-In-Chief tried the FN P-90 at the Fiocchi range, using Fiocchi 5'7x28mm ammunition, and they tumble just fine. Maybe it's some kind of 5'7mm ammunition engineered by Fiocchi, but in this case, I have already told you more than you should know...

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

"The few reports concerning police interventions with this cartridge (SS-190) are rather contradictories: there are cases where the adversary is immediately neutralized and others where he goes oneself up but he is upright and protests because he was hit 5 or 6 times !"
Frank W. James, translation by me...

" where he goes oneself up but he is upright and protests because he was hit 5 or 6 times !"

say wha...
look-- the same can be said for even 9mm or .40-- some folks swear by'em despite the fact police constant reports of over penetration or bullet deflection where combatants will take several rounds and keep coming. Don't swet it PT--the 5.7 is a Belgium thing, not I-talian.

__________________

Quote:

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping a human face...forever" ~George Orwell

Fiocchi manufactures it on behalf of FN, and it's currently the world's biggest manufacturer of 5'7x28mm SS197-SR (blue-tipped expansive ball). See HERE. Fiocchi also manufactures 4'6x30mm.

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Oh little one, though you have improved, you still speak of some things you know little or nothing about. The little .22 short was, and still is in some cases, a fine round for the elimination of unwanted vermin. The model 70 Berreta was and still is used by some. As always shot placement is the key. The .22 short even unsuppressed is quiet enough in most situations especially if the muzzle is in the ear, eye, or the base of the neck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie

We're speaking about a .22 Short. Not enough to cause lethal or even seriously life-threatening injuries, not even at extremely close distances unless you fire at extremely weak point. Under some circumstances, it may even be too littke to penetrate a human skull. The best way to cause effectively lethal injuries to somebody with such a small weapon is to shoot your target in the eye and have the bullet reach the brain from there... and again, it couldn't be enough. You could also shoot him at the pelvis or a leg, hit the femoral artery and let bleed to death.

And it's even worse with the extremely small defense calibers (4mm, 2mm) that were made for pocket pistols at the time (end of 19th Century). Today we -DO- have "small" calibers, like 4'6x30mm-HK or 5'7x28mm-FN (SS-190), but there's no comparaison... it's a totally new world of technology, and besides, even with today's tech, you would unlikely make something lethal out of a small bullet such as a 2mm "Kolibri" or a 4mm "Lilliput". Unless you make it an extremely hi-tech explosive capsule, "à la Escape from New York", once you shoot it to somebody (and it may be so little that he wouldn't even feel it), the bullet travels to a main blood vessel and explodes, making your target die from internal bleeding. But it would be something for covert assassinations. Nothing compared to the toy thing we're speaking about. Hell, even 6,35mm (.25-Acp) is much MUCH better than this... and .25-Acp -DOES requires a point-blank shot at the head to result in a sure kill. Make yourself the comparaison reading the datas yourself: .25-ACP.22 SHORT4mm CALIBER2mm KOLIBRI

Oh little one, though you have improved, you still speak of some things you know little or nothing about. The little .22 short was, and still is in some cases, a fine round for the elimination of unwanted vermin.

You said it, old lady. I would never use anything under 9mm for anything else but vermin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darla

The model 70 Berreta was and still is used by some.

A MOSSAD favourite...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darla

As always shot placement is the key. The .22 short even unsuppressed is quiet enough in most situations especially if the muzzle is in the ear, eye, or the base of the neck.

Yep, .22-Short and .22-Lr are extremely effective in eliminating a human target at point-blank distance when "the muzzle is in the ear, eye, or the base of the neck", cause the bullet has enough velocity to enter the cranius but not enough to pass through it, so it starts bouncing inside it and reduces the brain to marmalade.

Thanks. Some other time, try telling me something I still don't know.

The fact is: how many times will somebody find himself in a situation like this? How many times a self-defending civilian (I could give a shit less about "operators", in this moment) will have the possibility to stick the barrel of his gun in an attacker's eye, ear, or neck base, and pull the trigger? Do it, and even if you were in a life-or-death self-defense situation, you get charged with murder and go to jail. Period. Most self-defense (but even operational-tactical) handgun engagements happen at distances shorter than 8 metres (26,24 feet approx.), and at that distance I would not obviously trust a small-caliber handgun like a .25-Acp, .22-Short or .22-Lr, but not even a .32-Acp, to cause an immediate knockdown. Unless aimed at the head, obviously. But have you ever wondered why normal civilians who "train" (an euphemism, obviously) for everyday possibilities of self-defense situations are NEVER taugh to aim at the head? With all that accelerated heart beat, tunnel vision, etc., do you realize how hard is to hit an attacker in the head? It's the torso, the "big target", you have to aim at. It's easier to hit. And you need a decent caliber to bring down a target with a torso shot.
Obviously you can rely on .22 for shorter-range engagements... but how short-range? I would NEVER advise you to allow your attacker to get close enough to you for a .25-Acp or .22-Short or Long-Rifle to be first-shot effective or to render a head shot practical. Do it, and you're in some serious S**T.

Now please, don't start with all that "training, training!" blurb. Again, tell me something I don't know. I am a gunwriter. My magazine aims for the general public (although we don't dislike professionals and "tactical operators"). But professionals and tactical operators have, or at least can access to, the required training to turn into uber-shooters or something else. Common civilians have the need to defend themselves, but most of times don't have the time and/or the money (and unfortunately some don't ever have the will, but this is also common to some "professionals") to go through extensive, complicated training. That's why Glock pistols go so good between civilians for self-defense: easy to use, no safeties or hammer or other stuff to loose time with, just point and click. Same for the shooting techniques. There are several techniques for several types of shooters, depending from the time, the money, the force they can invest on training. Obviously I am all against people going around the streets armed without knowing what they are carrying and what exactly to do in an event of a self-defense action situation. But again, the average citizen needs an "average citizen" training. If he wants to go through professional training, fine, that's his choice. If he doesn't, I have a bunch of very simple rules for him:

#1 - Choose an adequate tool. This means a gun with a decent caliber. Small, pocket .25-Acp or .22-Lr are nice pocket carry objects and that's your choice, again, but mind the little effectiveness on medium-to-long distances and choose consequently. I wouldn't trust a firearm of such a caliber as my PRIMARY self-defense tool. Obviously a .22 in your pocket is better than a .45 left at home, but if you -CAN- carry your .45 rather than a .22, take the .45, and if you can choose between carrying a back-up .25 or .22 and carrying a spare magazine for your primary pistol, predilige the spare magazines. The caliber is also important for one thing: most of gunfights end after the first three rounds fired, after which one of the two opponents is down. Your gun must thus be a good mix of simplicity, reduced mass and weight for long carry, and good knockdown power. Reduced mass and weight will afflict recoil and muzzle climb: learn how to magage it.
Your tool of self-defense must also be simple and immediate to use. In stress situations, too many commands to operate before you can fire can cost your life. You need a gun that's a point-and-click. ANY gun is, but some are better, some not. A typical external-hammer pistol is not a point-and-click unless you carry it in Condition One (which is something I suggest only to expert shooters) or with hammer down and safety out AND it is a SA/DA pistol. You have to practice, practice, practice your gun until you can carry it in all safety AND perform the operations required to get it ready to fire FAST and AUTOMATICALLY when you need it. If for one reason or another you can't, then you should consider another kind of firearm that gives you both safety AND operational readiness in one. There are several semi-autos like (Glocks and Glock-based, Kahr, etc.), but a good choice would also be a revolver.

#2 - Most of pistol engagements happen at less than 8 metres of distance, so be careful: as your opponent is an easy target for you, you're an easy target for him. If you're confronted from an opponent who's already pointing a gun at you, and you have yours in your holster, don't attept to draw it out. You'll only get shot. If the assault is robbery-aimed, give your assaulter what he wants. Do it yourself: tell him, like, "I got my wallet in my pocket", and take it out yourself VERY slowly. Don't show him that you have a gun, or you may be forced to surrender it (and you do -NOT- want it). If you do it too fast, you may get shot. If the robber puts his hands on you and finds out the gun, he may get enraged at you for carrying a self-defense tool (predators don't like when preys equip themselves with means of defense against them) and subsequently kill you. So evaluate the situation very, VERY carefully. And remember that other lives, other than yours, may depend from your reaction. Don't let the predator perceive you as a menace. If you feel the need to fight back, you'll have time to do it immediately past the first part of the assault, when your predator will feel himself satisfied of what he gained and will be about to flee; very rarely will a satisfied predator kill his victim after he has finished, especially if he thinks that the victim can not identify him.
All above is valid only for robbery-motivated assaults. If the assault has other motivations, mainly phisical (rape, battery), be passive will get you hurt, but you will have to calibrate your behaviour on the risk of post-aggression kill (rapists kill their victims at the end of the assault way way more often than simple street robbers). People at risk of such assaults (women, typically) should be prepared with alternative means of self-defense, such as Mace, CS, or other chemicals, which are little effective but can temporarily disable the attacker for the time you need to flee or draw your primary defense tool (pistol). That's especially true if you think that an attacker will always seek an advantage over you by confronting you already at gunpoint.

#3 - If the situation calls, and allows, you to take out your gun, do without hesitation and KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. Choose your dressing carefully. Choose your HOLSTER carefully. Practice rapid drawing systems. You don't want your gun to slip down your holster, down your hands, to get snagged within your clothes and fall off, when you need it. The FIRST thing to do when you perceive that you are about to get involved in a shootout, is to spot the closest place to offer you protection (a hideout), and reach it. Once you are undercover, you'll have time to draw your gun if you haven't done it already, and to fight back if necessary. But seek cover first.

#4 - Don't loose time trying to disable your attacker by shooting him in a Hollywood-style less-than-lethal point: hitting limbs or shoulder only works in the movies. Them are difficult to aim, will not stop your attacker if he, as can happen, is under the effect of a narcotic, and by the way there are lots of arteries in the limbs and other so-thought "non-lethal points" that might kill your attacker as well and have you charged with manslaughter; not to mention that an attacker hit in such a point will still be able to fight back. If you need to shoot, then it's a life-or-death situation. This means that you have ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE IN THE WORLD but to pull your trigger, and you have to cause an immediate cessation of the attack. This means that you have to kill your attacker at once. But again, don't mind pointing at the head or something like that. It will be especially difficult to aim: accelerated heartbeat and tunnel vision, which are typical of a stress situation, will impair your capability to aim. If you are close enough to take a head shot to your target, you are in trouble more than he is. Aim for the torso. Two or three shots there will bring him down. A drugged opponent won't feel them; in this case, torso shots will give you the necessary time to aim properly at a more proper target (the head, in this case for real).

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack

Whatever was I thinking. My humble apologies I am but a senile old lady and should know better than to forward information to anyone whom already knows it all. One who writes about firearms always knows what is best and their wisdom should always be heeded.

Have a smile, please. I apologize if you felt I did anything to offend you or if you perceived I wanted to speak to you in a "know-it-all" fashion. But you are not the first one to come and tell me how "greatly effective" the .22-Short, .22-Lr, .25-ACP, even .17-Hmr can be at short range if you aim at your target's T-zone (the area comprised between the eyes, nose, and upper lip). Sure, even a high-powered air gun or a sharp stick will do the work if aimed there. But I still have to see an average civilian involved in a shooting, fighting for his own life or the life of his beloved, and find the cold blood to aim to such a small, difficult, unpredictable target. It's all theory. My father carried a gun concealed for many years when he found his life endangered by several factors; he was offered several guns like a .32 and even a .22, with which he trained. He chosen a .38-Spl revolver. He knows close to nothing about guns and can be considered an anti-gun person. But he KNEW what was best to use to protect his endangered life. Do you get what I mean, dear old lady? (obviously, still friendly speaking...)

And personally, I am sick tired of people like cops etc., only full of S**T for something they have been thaught to in the 1970s when they carried a .32 for duty, coming tell me how "dangerous" the .22-Lr is and how it can shatter a man's cranius over 1 km of distance (something that's hard to do even with a .308). This, when they now use a cartridge like 9x19 (a.k.a. 9 Luger) with FMJ round-nose bullet which happened, even VERY recently, to have hit s.o. in the head and remained stuck there, sending the guy into a coma.

Terminal ballistics is not an exact science. The performance of an ammunition on its final target can only be sketched, at best, from the manufacturer's tests. In operational use, performances can be boosted or crippled by many factors, including environmental ones and even by the peculiar physical differences between a person and another. The smaller the bullet, the worst it will be afflicted by said factors.

Obviously, many factors are to be considered when you choose a handgun for personal defense, last but not least the threatening look: the biggest force you get from having a gun is that most of times having it is enough, its only presence will ensure you the fact that you will never have to use it. Much like nukes. But what if you -DO-, one day, find yourself in a situation when you need to use your gun to stop an attack, in a fast, definitive way? You need a proper instrument. And, I am sorry to say, a .22 or .25 is not the proper instrument unless you plan to have a VERY close encounter... and you are effectively prepared to manage it properly.
At least, .22 or .25 pistols can find a good use under the same philosophy that led to the birth of the Russian/Soviet PSM pistol and its less-than-effective 5'45x17'8mm: its purpose could be to wound your target bad enough to force him to go somewhere to get cured.

This said, let's get back to the ring-gun, it may have had its sense back when it was made. Such a gun would be a good anti-rape tool for a woman. Imagine: your attacker overwhelms you, lays you down with his weight, and when he's about to do the deed... you aim your ring-gun at his temple and shoot him dead. Good. I would be interested in knowing how it works, 'cause if you need the other hand to operate it, well... but if it can be, to say, squeeze-fired or something, it's a whole another story.

P.S.: was you at the SHOT Show this year?

__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack